You mean like during the Bush era with a Republican't Whitehouse and Republican't congress with its military spending, spending which at some point has to be utilised and hence the farce surrounding finding a reason to enter Iraq.
As I have already mentioned the issue is twofold and they are intertwined, which the Republican'ts are not helping .
The level of debt is where it is because the government had to prop up the banking sector, the automotive sector and everything else that imploded once the financial bubble popped, a bubble that was not regulated for 2 presidencies with Republican't in control of the 3 aspects of the government. The seed may have been sown with Clinton but was nurtured under full stewardship of the Republican'ts while junior tried to finish what his daddy couldn't in Iraq.
Introducing Obamacare while the country was experiencing this financial crisis is something that many will argue over for generation, but Republican't agreed to it, be it after perverting it. Also Obama made a commitment to introduce it and change was needed. He was either going to be that president that plodded through his 1st term just fixing the financial mess that was dropped on his plate, mess which consistently the Republican'ts refused to cut military spending while all the time dicking around with billions on failed programs like... the Comanche OR he could try to make a difference.
So we are where we are with a debt ceiling pushed out for 2more months, Republican'ts again not allowing any spending cuts. To cut this debt spending has to be reduced and tax returns need to go up. Where are the spending cuts that are required by law? Legally postponed by Republican'ts again You talk about out of control spending, I agree but where are the cuts? That's right postponed again by the Republican'ts because they can't.
Obama was re-elected, correction the masses decided to not let a Republican't near the whitehouse even if it meant another term with Obama. Says something doesn't it.

Last edited by eeyrjmr on Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

Obama was elected by 49% of the electorate, versus 48% for his opponent, despite lingering public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and the financial crisis. So, no, it doesn't really say much of anything. The rest of your post is a bunch of blather -- pat talking points from the propaganda-fed echo chamber, most have which have already been addressed. Not worthy of regurgitation.

If you think G.H.W. Bush "couldn't finish" Iraq, then you don't know what you are talking about. He humanely stopped our forces when it was starting to turn into a massacre. You must not have even been an adult at the time to not be aware of this.

If you think G.H.W. Bush "couldn't finish" Iraq, then you don't know what you are talking about. He humanely stopped our forces when it was starting to turn into a massacre. You must not have even been an adult at the time to not be aware of this.

and after he incited the iraqis to rebel against hussein, he humanely let them die after leaving the country...

If you think G.H.W. Bush "couldn't finish" Iraq, then you don't know what you are talking about. He humanely stopped our forces when it was starting to turn into a massacre. You must not have even been an adult at the time to not be aware of this.

and after he incited the iraqis to rebel against hussein, he humanely let them die after leaving the country...

Yeah, that's what happened. Saddam Hussein never invaded and annexed Kuwait, threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, or rained SCUD missiles down on Israeli cities (and all before the international coalition ever made a single offensive move). Pull you head out.

Do you even know which war you're talking about? It boggles the mind how willing people are to pontificate and blather about stuff they don't even have a rudimentary grasp of, all because they've got lip-lock on some Kool Aid hose.

slowly I begin to believe you don't know what your talking about... Thanks for the information about saddam, etc... omg I talk about the phase before the U.S left iraq and abandoned all the iraqis that were ready to fight saddam hussein and get slaughtered after the allied left... you've heard of it?

what I disdain most is when people talk shit when someone has not the same opinion as themselves... like in the other tread you talk a lot about progaganda victims, and you think you have the purest information sources... seriously, if you are as old as you say, then you should know that all information (except maybe some areas in science/mathematics) are not exact and you just have chosen you "republican, right, etc" position and everything that is not like you is "stupid, misinformed, a propaganda victim etc..."

and to say "humane" and "bush" in one sentence is seriously wrong.. do you really think bush cared about "his" soldiers? or the "poor, oppressed iraqi people"
do you really think that desert strom was to save kuwait, or any people there?

very ironic that they called there second invasion "operation iraqi-freedom" as they care about any iraqis and not their oil..

slowly I begin to believe you don't know what your talking about... Thanks for the information about saddam, etc... omg I talk about the phase before the U.S left iraq and abandoned all the iraqis that were ready to fight saddam hussein and get slaughtered after the allied left... you've heard of it?

Regime change was not the U.S. policy in Iraq until the Clinton Administration. You have no clue what you're talking about. The day G.H.W. Bush ordered Colin Powell to call off the offensive and offered the Iraqis the opportunity to surrender, our air and deep strike forces had completely destroyed the C4ISR capabilities of the Iraqi military and government, we had interdicted their logistics across their defensive front and their front-line troops were taking off their uniforms and either walking home or surrendering; our armored forces had already easily defeated the "elite Republican guard"; our infantry had breached their supposedly impenetrable "wall of fire" defenses like they weren't there and steadily advanced up the Eastern corridor. At the moment he made his decision, we were chopping up the retreating Iraqi forces like overgrown grass with a lawnmower. About 50,000 retreating Iraqi troops and looters were jammed up in the major maneuver corridor, we had outflanked them, and our pursuing gunships were doing this to them at will. Had Bush waited another couple of hours to call us off, all those people (invaders and looters or not, they are human beings) would have been slaughtered. It wasn't even good target practice.

There was no goal for the Coalition to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The objectives were to drive his forces out of occupied Kuwait, and neutralized the threat by rendering his military combat ineffective. Those objectives had been met, and he did the human thing and stop the fight. Could he have continued, wiped out the Iraqi military, invaded Baghdad, seized the state and occupied the country? Yes, but that was not the mandate agreed to by the Coalition nations. Did we make use of psychological warfare and try to trigger as much internal unrest and revolt as we could, in conjunction with the attack? Yes. Would we have been upset if somebody had mounted a coup? Of course not. But, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was not the objective, and it was not what our coalition signed up for.

Regime change became the U.S. strategic objective in Iraq during the Clinton Administration, when it had begun to become obvious that Hussein was not complying with the terms of the cease-fire and would eventually once again become the same threat to our allies and the global energy supply (and therefore, economy). With 20-20 hindsight, one can claim "we should have just finished the job the first time", but in reality, nobody is blessed in advance with such hindsight. In fact, such pre-emptive warfare is exactly what the pussified Europeans whined about with respect the neo-conservative Bush Administration. G.H.W. Bush's actions in Iraq were strategically correct in military terms, and they were humane, avoiding what would have been hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. Saddam Hussein, through his arrogance, greed, violent nature, and misguided ass-hattery, made it necessary later for us to indeed finish the job. But it is wholly incorrect to say G.H.W. Bush "couldn't" finish the job.

LoTeK wrote:

what I disdain most is when people talk shit when someone has not the same opinion as themselves... like in the other tread you talk a lot about progaganda victims, and you think you have the purest information sources... seriously, if you are as old as you say, then you should know that all information (except maybe some areas in science/mathematics) are not exact and you just have chosen you "republican, right, etc" position and everything that is not like you is "stupid, misinformed, a propaganda victim etc..."

My information is not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than yours. It's as simple as that. You don't even know which war you're talking about. You're just parroting the idiotic things you've heard other, equally uninformed people say. "Squaaaak!!! Braaak!! ZOMG lulz RePublicantz lol!" The beginning of wisdom is having some degree of insight into what you don't know.

LoTeK wrote:

and to say "humane" and "bush" in one sentence is seriously wrong.. do you really think bush cared about "his" soldiers? or the "poor, oppressed iraqi people"
do you really think that desert strom was to save kuwait, or any people there?

More nonsense and knee-jerk talking points. Desert Storm was indeed to liberate Kuwait and neutralize a threat to Western allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.) and the global energy supply. That's why some 39 countries signed up and participated in the operation. In your blurry, fuzzy, uninformed reality, one war is the same as the next, and one Bush is as good as another, but you're seriously misinformed. Since I hear the same crap regularly from certain sources of propaganda, it's natural for me to assume this is how you've become so misinformed.

LoTeK wrote:

very ironic that they called there second invasion "operation iraqi-freedom" as they care about any iraqis and not their oil..

Yes, I have to agree with you there. While military operations are, more often than not, given such propaganda-like names, it is true in the broader sense that the Bush Administration tried to lead a divided country into the second war, and was not honest about the reasons they were doing it. Regime change was the U.S. policy in Iraq for a reason -- oil being at the root of the matter, and the Ba'ath movement being a real threat to energy security the economies of the West -- and the historically ongoing, back-and-forth, "clash of civilizations" that's been raging for the last 4,000 years being the bigger picture. But, that wasn't going to convince enough of the American populace to support a pre-emptive invasion, so they basically lied, exaggerating sketchy intelligence, demonizing the individual Hussein, and portraying his Ba'ath movement as being more intrinsically linked to Jihadi terrorism than it was (although Ba'ath was indeed seeking to create a massive Arab military alliance against the West and was in fact armed with a huge arsenal of chemical weapons). So I agree with you on this count. But you're wrong about everything else.

Yeah, that's what happened. Saddam Hussein never invaded and annexed Kuwait, threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, or rained SCUD missiles down on Israeli cities (and all before the international coalition ever made a single offensive move). Pull you head out.

Don't forget all those WMDs which some arseholes pulled out of their hats. It is my understanding that you People called these arseholes "government", and 40% still do, with pride and waving flags, if I may add. LOL USA

Regime change was not the U.S. policy in Iraq until the Clinton Administration. You have no clue what you're talking about

wtf, I didn't ever say that this was the U.S. policy, you definitely should read more precisely!! I talked about that the CIA incited the kurds / south iraqi to rebel against saddam hussein and when they did, the U.S (and the others) left iraq and they get slaughtered...I didn't talked about the "enemy" iraqis goddam...!!

Quote:

The day G.H.W. Bush ordered Colin Powell to call off the offensive and offered the Iraqis the opportunity to surrender, our air and deep strike forces had completely destroyed the C4ISR capabilities of the Iraqi military and government, we had interdicted their logistics across their defensive front and their front-line troops were taking off their uniforms and either walking home or surrendering; our armored forces had already easily defeated the "elite Republican guard"; our infantry had breached their supposedly impenetrable "wall of fire" defenses like they weren't there and steadily advanced up the Eastern corridor. At the moment he made his decision, we were chopping up the retreating Iraqi forces like overgrown grass with a lawnmower

...

Quote:

such pre-emptive warfare is exactly what the pussified Europeans whined about with respect the neo-conservative Bush Administration

yeah, wow, you had more money/equipment etc then the iraqi forces, what victory...! you yanks didn't have one war (except the american revolutionary war and the civil war, which were definitely brutal, but even so not nearly as brutal as all the european wars!) in your own country and think you are strong.. you didn't have causalities in the second world war except pearl harbor and talk about pussified... seriously.. we europeans fought long before your country even existed and I think it is save to say that the most people who died in wars, died in europe! All you've learned, you have learned from us (think of how the S.A.S. trained your special forces or how the british intelligence helped build your CIA...) If you would have a war in your country you would be really fucked up, because your people are mostly pussified mac donalds eating fat yanks...

Quote:

...But it is wholly incorrect to say G.H.W. Bush "couldn't" finish the job.

I didn't say he couldn't finish the job and moreover I would never talk about those people and their decisions 20 years after with more knowledge... I just think to say bush left iraq because he is humane is really far from reality.. (btw I respect Howard Bush at least a little bit, because he wasn't only a fucked up politican lier, but also a soldier)

Quote:

My information is not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than yours. It's as simple as that. You don't even know which war you're talking about. You're just parroting the idiotic things you've heard other, equally uninformed people say. "Squaaaak!!! Braaak!! ZOMG lulz RePublicantz lol!" The beginning of wisdom is having some degree of insight into what you don't know.

I don't said I have much information about this war but why do you say twice that I don't know which war we are talking about?! I admit that you may "know" more about this war, but I also read quite alot.. but moreover I know humans, I know how they get their "information"!! Do you even know how to verify your information?? I doubt it.. (how, do you travel back in time and supervise the war ? there is no way for us to verify such information and you only believe your information is good.. but I know, self-criticism is not the thing of the U.S and by god A...)

Quote:

Desert Storm was indeed to liberate Kuwait and neutralize a threat to Western allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.) and the global energy supply.

that is the ugliest thing you said, because it extrem fucking bullshit.!! your "energy support" is a big lie.. If you would know at least a little bit of the current state of science you would know that there are way more intelligent energy sources then oil. I worked as a lab assistent and it's extrem stupid to burn oil for car driving etc, on one hand you can do many things with oil in organic chemistry and on the other hand oil is very limited... We could long be driving electro or hydrogen cars if your oil-whores republicans wouldn't kill all affords (ok, this is not quite correct, I know of course that there are other oil-fuck-whores than the republicans or other U.S. people )

Quote:

Yes, I have to agree with you there

hehe, well, at least we agree on one point

One more thing, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only cool republican and he is not even a natural born yank... Terminator 2 is way more cool than any movie of Ronald Reagan...

Yeah, that's what happened. Saddam Hussein never invaded and annexed Kuwait, threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, or rained SCUD missiles down on Israeli cities (and all before the international coalition ever made a single offensive move). Pull you head out.

Don't forget all those WMDs which some arseholes pulled out of their hats. It is my understanding that you People called these arseholes "government", and 40% still do, with pride and waving flags, if I may add. LOL USA

I addressed this point fully, and you'd have known that if you'd have read the post. To wit:

Quote:

Yes, I have to agree with you there. While military operations are, more often than not, given such propaganda-like names, it is true in the broader sense that the Bush Administration tried to lead a divided country into the second war, and was not honest about the reasons they were doing it. Regime change was the U.S. policy in Iraq for a reason -- oil being at the root of the matter, and the Ba'ath movement being a real threat to energy security the economies of the West -- and the historically ongoing, back-and-forth, "clash of civilizations" that's been raging for the last 4,000 years being the bigger picture. But, that wasn't going to convince enough of the American populace to support a pre-emptive invasion, so they basically lied, exaggerating sketchy intelligence, demonizing the individual Hussein, and portraying his Ba'ath movement as being more intrinsically linked to Jihadi terrorism than it was (although Ba'ath was indeed seeking to create a massive Arab military alliance against the West and was in fact armed with a huge arsenal of chemical weapons). So I agree with you on this count. But you're wrong about everything else.

Regime change was not the U.S. policy in Iraq until the Clinton Administration. You have no clue what you're talking about

wtf, I didn't ever say that this was the U.S. policy, you definitely should read more precisely!! I talked about that the CIA incited the kurds / south iraqi to rebel against saddam hussein and when they did, the U.S (and the others) left iraq and they get slaughtered...I didn't talked about the "enemy" iraqis goddam...!!

Sorry, I got you and eeyrjmr merged into one person's argument in my head. Yes, you're right, we could have done more to keep the Iraqis who revolted against Saddam Hussein from retribution. We did secure them very well, for a time, but we did indeed leave.

I had merged your claim with eeyrjmr's claim that G.H.W. Bush "couldn't finish the job", and that's the main point I was arguing against. Nobody wanted to "finish the job" at that time.

My apologies for thinking you were continuing his argument. Just simple confusion.

LoTeK wrote:

Quote:

The day G.H.W. Bush ordered Colin Powell to call off the offensive and offered the Iraqis the opportunity to surrender, our air and deep strike forces had completely destroyed the C4ISR capabilities of the Iraqi military and government, we had interdicted their logistics across their defensive front and their front-line troops were taking off their uniforms and either walking home or surrendering; our armored forces had already easily defeated the "elite Republican guard"; our infantry had breached their supposedly impenetrable "wall of fire" defenses like they weren't there and steadily advanced up the Eastern corridor. At the moment he made his decision, we were chopping up the retreating Iraqi forces like overgrown grass with a lawnmower

...

Quote:

such pre-emptive warfare is exactly what the pussified Europeans whined about with respect the neo-conservative Bush Administration

yeah, wow, you had more money/equipment etc then the iraqi forces, what victory...! you yanks didn't have one war (except the american revolutionary war and the civil war, which were definitely brutal, but even so not nearly as brutal as all the european wars!) in your own country and think you are strong.. you didn't have causalities in the second world war except pearl harbor and talk about pussified... seriously.. we europeans fought long before your country even existed and I think it is save to say that the most people who died in wars, died in europe! All you've learned, you have learned from us (think of how the S.A.S. trained your special forces or how the british intelligence helped build your CIA...) If you would have a war in your country you would be really fucked up, because your people are mostly pussified mac donalds eating fat yanks...

Blah, blah, blah. And the Brits learned everything the SAS knows from either the Boers or American Colonists (like Rogers' Rangers), and we had Ranger Regiments (which Brits learned from on Operation Overlord) and our OSS (which Brits learned from in Burma) before you had SAS. The truth is that the elite forces of many countries trade ideas and cross-train, and because they are "elite" forces, every country thinks theirs is the best. Ours actually are the best, but I don't fault you for believing that yours are.

LoTeK wrote:

Quote:

...But it is wholly incorrect to say G.H.W. Bush "couldn't" finish the job.

I didn't say he couldn't finish the job and moreover I would never talk about those people and their decisions 20 years after with more knowledge... I just think to say bush left iraq because he is humane is really far from reality.. (btw I respect Howard Bush at least a little bit, because he wasn't only a fucked up politican lier, but also a soldier)

As I said above, I thought you had said earlier something that eeyore (or whatever his name is) had said. Sorry.

I don't know who Howard Bush is, but nearly all of our presidents have been soldiers. Obama and Clinton are two of the very few exceptions.

LoTeK wrote:

Quote:

My information is not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than yours. It's as simple as that. You don't even know which war you're talking about. You're just parroting the idiotic things you've heard other, equally uninformed people say. "Squaaaak!!! Braaak!! ZOMG lulz RePublicantz lol!" The beginning of wisdom is having some degree of insight into what you don't know.

I don't said I have much information about this war but why do you say twice that I don't know which war we are talking about?! I admit that you may "know" more about this war, but I also read quite alot.. but moreover I know humans, I know how they get their "information"!! Do you even know how to verify your information?? I doubt it.. (how, do you travel back in time and supervise the war ? there is no way for us to verify such information and you only believe your information is good.. but I know, self-criticism is not the thing of the U.S and by god A...)

Much of my information I don't need to verify because I was there, as an Army Officer, in the position of S-3 Air for a Cavalry Squadron. As I said, though, my information isn't perfect, but I know enough to take what certain sources say with a grain of salt, think for myself, and parse the truth of out of what I'm told. I may occasionally blurt pat talking points for the fun of it, but I won't seriously argue anything I don't believe.

LoTeK wrote:

[

Quote:

Desert Storm was indeed to liberate Kuwait and neutralize a threat to Western allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.) and the global energy supply.

that is the ugliest thing you said, because it extrem fucking bullshit.!! your "energy support" is a big lie.. If you would know at least a little bit of the current state of science you would know that there are way more intelligent energy sources then oil. I worked as a lab assistent and it's extrem stupid to burn oil for car driving etc, on one hand you can do many things with oil in organic chemistry and on the other hand oil is very limited... We could long be driving electro or hydrogen cars if your oil-whores republicans wouldn't kill all affords (ok, this is not quite correct, I know of course that there are other oil-fuck-whores than the republicans or other U.S. people )

I know quite a bit about science; I'm just telling you what the reason for the war was. I'm not arguing it was necessary or unnecessary (in fact I think I said it was unnecessary somewhere earlier in this thread).

Now, having said that, I think the vitriolic hyperbole you just barfed out is pretty much naive. It takes decades to achieve something like a shift from one energy source to another. If you don't believe me, just look at how little has changed since that war, which was over two decades ago. Based on the rate of change, how long do you think it's going take? Fifty years would be optimistic.

In fact, I remember being a little kid during the "Oil Crisis" in the 1970s. There was a lot of fapping then, too, about getting off oil, and guess what? Not much changed.

There is no way the Western economies could have rapidly weened themselves from petroleum, quickly enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from squeezing them by the balls for decades. More importantly, once the world saw what one asshat with a few tanks can get away with, the global economic interests of the U.S., all the European states, etc., would have been at risk and rapidly eroded, unless somebody eventually put their foot down. Desert Storm was a coalition of many nations who put their foot down collectively and said, "No. This sort of thing will not be tolerated."

It may seem callous to spill "blood for oil", but if one understands that economics translates directly into the welfare of human beings, it's pretty understandable. Energy is the life's blood of our societies, and it's essential to almost all our needs. Are you such a pacifist you wouldn't fight back if someone was stealing your mother's food and kicking her out of her house into the cold? If you are, then you are entitled to spout the kind of nonsense you just did. If you would fight for the well-being of your loved ones, then you need to re-think things. Yes, we should learn from this and become oil-independent rapidly. Should we have allowed Saddam to invade and annex Kuwait, and possibly most of the Northern Saudi oil fields? Fuck no.

LoTeK wrote:

[

Quote:

Yes, I have to agree with you there

hehe, well, at least we agree on one point

One more thing, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only cool republican and he is not even a natural born yank... Terminator 2 is way more cool than any movie of Ronald Reagan...

I like him better in Predator, and I don't really care, because I'm not a Republican. I just don't hate them like the moronic, fapping, zombie hive-mind our Democratic Party has become.

It may seem callous to spill "blood for oil", but if one understands that economics translates directly into the welfare of human beings, it's pretty understandable. Energy is the life's blood of our societies, and it's essential to almost all our needs. Are you such a pacifist you wouldn't fight back if someone was stealing your mother's food and kicking her out of her house into the cold? If you are, then you are entitled to spout the kind of nonsense you just did. If you would fight for the well-being of your loved ones, then you need to re-think things. Yes, we should learn from this and become oil-independent rapidly. Should we have allowed Saddam to invade and annex Kuwait, and possibly most of the Northern Saudi oil fields? Fuck no.

That's bad economics, but the important point is that the people who talk about "blood for oil" aren't talking about the use of violence in a situation analogous to someone stealing your mother's food. They are thinking of a situation where you are the thief._________________Your argument is invalid.

It may seem callous to spill "blood for oil", but if one understands that economics translates directly into the welfare of human beings, it's pretty understandable. Energy is the life's blood of our societies, and it's essential to almost all our needs. Are you such a pacifist you wouldn't fight back if someone was stealing your mother's food and kicking her out of her house into the cold? If you are, then you are entitled to spout the kind of nonsense you just did. If you would fight for the well-being of your loved ones, then you need to re-think things. Yes, we should learn from this and become oil-independent rapidly. Should we have allowed Saddam to invade and annex Kuwait, and possibly most of the Northern Saudi oil fields? Fuck no.

That's bad economics, but the important point is that the people who talk about "blood for oil" aren't talking about the use of violence in a situation analogous to someone stealing your mother's food. They are thinking of a situation where you are the thief.

No, they're generally talking about not sending their loved ones off to fight for oil, to make some rich guy richer.

While there is some truth to that, and has been since the British started the fad (of killing people for oil), what they're leaving out is that, for the time being and at least the next few decades, our modern society grinds to a screeching halt without petroleum. That means the economy collapses. It means most jobs are no longer there. It means the power is on maybe 4 hours a day. It means no more refrigerator, and no more supermarket, and most houses having no heating or cooling. It means widespread rationing. It almost certainly means an immediate and sustained state of martial law, with the apparatus that enforces it getting first priority on everything. It means a lot of people going hungry, getting sick, dying, robbing, looting, etc.

Now that's if all foreign sources of petroleum were abruptly cut off. That's not a realistic scenario, because we wouldn't let it happen. We'd go to war to prevent it. What's more realistic is that some portion of the extra-national supply would be cut off, and the immediate consequences would be global rationing of energy and a huge spike in energy prices, followed by a cascading series of price increases pretty much across the board, for virtually all goods and services.

The real cost of living would jump by a large fraction within days (it no longer takes a full cycle of the supply chain for prices to cascade). There would be shortages and hoarding. Crime would jump. There would be widespread economic deprivation, including hunger and all the usual human consequences of poverty, on a widespread basis. So, while not a zombie apocalypse, we're still talking about a major blow, right where people feel it -- in the wallet. And when you're living paycheck to paycheck (or government check to government check) like half the population even in this country, that means you feel it in very real ways, just like somebody is taking your food or kicking you out of your house.

No, they're generally talking about not sending their loved ones off to fight for oil, to make some rich guy richer.

That's what I thought I was saying.

Quote:

While there is some truth to that, and has been since the British started the fad (of killing people for oil), what they're leaving out is that, for the time being and at least the next few decades, our modern society grinds to a screeching halt without petroleum. That means the economy collapses. It means most jobs are no longer there. It means the power is on maybe 4 hours a day. It means no more refrigerator, and no more supermarket, and most houses having no heating or cooling. It means widespread rationing. It almost certainly means an immediate and sustained state of martial law, with the apparatus that enforces it getting first priority on everything. It means a lot of people going hungry, getting sick, dying, robbing, looting, etc.

Now that's if all foreign sources of petroleum were abruptly cut off. That's not a realistic scenario, because we wouldn't let it happen. We'd go to war to prevent it. What's more realistic is that some portion of the extra-national supply would be cut off, and the immediate consequences would be global rationing of energy and a huge spike in energy prices, followed by a cascading series of price increases pretty much across the board, for virtually all goods and services.

The real cost of living would jump by a large fraction within days (it no longer takes a full cycle of the supply chain for prices to cascade). There would be shortages and hoarding. Crime would jump. There would be widespread economic deprivation, including hunger and all the usual human consequences of poverty, on a widespread basis. So, while not a zombie apocalypse, we're still talking about a major blow, right where people feel it -- in the wallet. And when you're living paycheck to paycheck (or government check to government check) like half the population even in this country, that means you feel it in very real ways, just like somebody is taking your food or kicking you out of your house.

You don't need the threat of war to prevent it--it wouldn't happen because it doesn't make any sense from an economic viewpoint. Besides, wars cause price spikes, not prevent them. I think if the government has any impact at all on oil prices, it is a negative impact. But I agree with what you are saying about the importance of oil to the economy._________________Your argument is invalid.

Who said the Gulf War was humane? No, really. I'm asking you to answer.

You said it ended humanely. I seem to remember it ending with people being burned alive.

No, I didn't, and I showed a picture of people who got burned alive in the same post.

I said that G.H.W. Bush called a halt to the offensive because we were mowing the Iraqis down (as they tried to flee North with their tanks and their truckloads of looted Kuwaiti property). I said that was the humane thing to do. I said that he brought the offensive to a half for humanitarian reasons.

Why do you feel the need to twist my words into something entirely different? Just for the trolling value? Shame on you.

No, they're generally talking about not sending their loved ones off to fight for oil, to make some rich guy richer.

That's what I thought I was saying.

Not even close. You said:

Quote:

the important point is that the people who talk about "blood for oil" aren't talking about the use of violence in a situation analogous to someone stealing your mother's food. They are thinking of a situation where you are the thief.

Maybe you could try to convince me you mean the oil companies are the "thieves" you were referring to, but I doubt it. I believe your use of the word "thief" was in reference to the use of force to obtain oil for our use. My point is that the people who are saying this are forgetting that their very life depends on that oil.

Let's draw a simplistic analogy:

Lets say two groups of people live on opposite sides of a ridge. One side has practically all the game, and the other side has practically all the water. There is a generally free trade of food for water going on. (There are no fish, few edible plants, and these Neanderthals don't know how to farm.)

One day, an asshole on the water side who controls one of the six or so water sources, decides he wants to get control of as much of the water as possible, so he can be king of the water people and force the game people to do whatever he wants. He builds up a little army of spearmen, and he takes over the neighboring water source, killing or enslaving the people and taking all their stuff. He's getting ready to move on to the third game lot, and he's saying, "Ha, ha! You're fucked now, game people!"

The people on the game side, in particular the ones who control one of the six or so major game lots and who have been getting much of their water from the source just conquered and the one about to be conquered, start thinking, "Hmmm... not good." While he'll eventually need to trade some water for game, he can really fuck us up before he gets to that point; half of us will die of thirst, and we'll be so weakened we won't be able to make babies or defend ourselves. And, even if he eventually needs to trade for game, he'll do so under his own terms, probably after he conquers the other water sources, and he'll have us by the balls and make us poor, or conquer us too! So they get the rest of the game people together along with a lot of the threatened water people from other water sources, form a big army of spearmen, and go over to the water source he's about to conquer, making it impossible for him to do so. They then send a messenger over to tell him to go back to his own land and give back the one he's conquered.

He sends a message back saying, "Suck my hairy Neanderthal balls, deer-fuckers. This is water people business. Go back to your heathen hunting grounds, where you engage in unorthodox sexual activity!!" He shoots a few volleys of arrows to make his point, and shoots some more toward the game people villages.

So the game people force charges, and the greedy water chief's people run away. They get chased all the way back to their own land are taking refuge in their village. Many being overtaken and skewered, and it's clear they have been routed. The chief of the game people's force says, "Okay, they're running away! Stop chasing and killing them. I think they've learned their lesson." He sends a messenger to the greedy water chief asshole, who agrees to surrender. He collects up all their spears, says, "Let this be a lesson to you; don't try this again, or we'll really kick your ass and put somebody else in charge," and they go home.

Are the game people here the "thieves"? That's what you're saying.

dmitchell wrote:

You don't need the threat of war to prevent it--it wouldn't happen because it doesn't make any sense from an economic viewpoint.

Right. It doesn't make sense from an economic viewpoint. That's why Saddam Hussein never invaded Kuwait.

It's also why, even if he had, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the U.K., Egypt, France, Syria, Morocco, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Canada, UAE, Qatar, Bangladesh, and Italy wouldn't have cared enough to each send over a thousand people into combat.